wiki_get_wiki

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, error handling, or response format. The description lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or what data is returned, making it insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get the wiki'), making it easy to scan. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieval operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., wiki metadata, structure, or content), error conditions, or usage context. For a tool with no structured output or behavioral hints, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'wikiIdentifier' as the unique identifier and 'project' as optional with default behavior. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get the wiki by wikiIdentifier' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('wiki'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails—does it retrieve metadata, content, or both? It distinguishes from siblings like 'wiki_list_wikis' (list vs. get) but not from 'wiki_get_page_content' (get wiki vs. get page content). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving wiki details versus using 'wiki_list_wikis' for listing or 'wiki_get_page_content' for content. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.